Thursday, December 31, 2009

We Stand Corrected...

We received an e-mail note from school board member---and candidate for re-election--- Al Slane yesterday, who apparently took umbrage from our post regarding his "perfect" voting record. Slane wrote, rather cryptically,

From: al@slane.us
To: SP-EYE
Date: Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Subject: Blog

Wow, I was the only one to not vote for some key items. I'll let you re-review your facts to figure that out.

Al Slane

As noted in the title of this post, Slane is correct. He identified two specific issues on which he voted "Nay". Unlike (ahem...school board members and certain administrators) we can admit when we err. It's not an excuse....but it does deserve explanation. You see...we took the voting results from the vaunted BoardDocs voting tally. You ask us? It's more like BoardSchlocks. You see...apparently (though we've owned it for over a year), BoardDocs has (at least) one teensy weensy little flaw. Perhaps Mr. Slane summarized it best:

" The problem with the data you are looking at is a known issue with BoardDocs, in that it can not track the votes for multiple motions or amendments (which is complete BS and has been voiced to BoardDocs support). The next version of BoardDocs is addressing this. The minutes are the record, not the BoardDocs votes. I know there are BoardDocs issues, and I tried to review it in FTT, but I did not correctly understand your request and so that review was kind of meaningless because I did not properly convey it to Admin. I plan to rectify this in the future."

We could ask the question, "Why would we have purchased software so fatally flawed"...but that would be digressing. We'll let that little notion simmer in your heads. Back to the issue at hand.

Slane DID vote "NO" on at least TWO occasions...but you need the full story behind each.

1. 6/22/09 - 6.02 Ratification of 2009-2011 SPEA Collective Bargaining Agreement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original motion, TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT WITH THE SUN PRAIRIE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION (SPEA) was amended to read,

APPROVE THE INTENT OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH SUN PRAIRIE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION (SPEA).

On this vote, Slane voted "NO". Shimek abstained, others voted "Aye". BoardDocs captured the FIRST vote (on which Slane voted "Yes") to AMEND the motion coming forward from administration.

We're not even sure what this motion does. How does one NOT vote to approve the "INTENT" of a CBA?

The next one is a classic cluster (expletive deleted) .

2. 7-13-2009 6.02 Reduction to Previously Approved Administrator Salary and Benefit Total Package for 2009-2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOTION: TO REDUCE THE 2009-2010 TOTAL COMPENSATION (SALARIES AND BENEFITS) PACKAGE INCREASE FOR ADMINISTRATORS FROM 4.5% TO 3.8% WHILE LEAVING ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTUAL BENEFITS AND EVALUATION PLAN AS IS

A. (motion#1) Stackhouse made a motion to amend the motion coming out of committee to add 5 furlough days for each administrator. That motion died on the vine because no one would second it. This would have been a good time for Albert to step up to the plate and at least second the motion...but NOOOOOOOO.

B. (motion #2) to table the original motion (raise reduction) failed on a vote of 3-3-1 (ties represent a failed motion). Slane, Stackhouse, and Camber-Davidson wanted to table it. Shimek--the would be swing vote--was absent.

C. (motion #3) on the 3rd try, they re-voted on the original motion--motion to reduce administrators' pay raises. This motion FAILED due to another tie vote. Which meant that Admin got their original 4.5% pay raises! Slane, Stackhouse, and Camber-Davidson voted "Yes", meaning they supported the raise reduction (a good thing).

D. (motion #4) Later in the meeting, Stackhouse---thankfully...great recovery, Mav!--- made a motion to reconsider their initial folly (they basically gave administrators a bigger raise than even admin wanted!) and re-vote. That motion (to-re-consider the original motion and subsequent vote) passed 5-1-1, with Slane voting "NO"!!! That means he VOTED to keep the Admin raises at 4.5%!!!!

E. (motion #5) Finally, on the 5th vote on the issue, they RE-voted on the original motion (to reduce the admin raises), and it passed 4-2-1, with Slane and Camber-Davidson voting "NO".

So, basically, Camber-Davidson and Slane---though we don't think they understood the vote---voted AGAINST reducing the administrators' pay raises. Did you follow all that?

SP-EYE - Therefore, we stand corrected. Mr. Slane voted "No" on 2 issues...though we're not certain he should be proud of either vote. He was doing better being viewed as a Yes man. SP-EYE is going to peruse all the "official" minutes and see if there are additional discrepancies, but it should only be when multiple votes or amended motions are made---which happens only rarely for this lock-step group.

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

School Boarding In 3/4 Time

Yet another revelation from reviewing the 2009 Sun Prairie School Board meeting records.

Jim "McSeaBass" McCourt...you know...the guy seeking re-election this spring...failed to show up for fully 25% of school board meetings!

Yep. That's right. Mr McCourt operated in 3/4 time---while collecting his full salary (well...95% salary after 7/1/09). McCourt was absent for the meetings of:

2/23/2009
5/26/2009
6/8/2009
9/14/2009
10/12/2009
12/14/2009

That's 6 meetings....out of 24. Oh...yeah...and he wasn't present for the annual meeting either.

And he thinks he should be re-elected? Perhaps Mr. McCourt should focus his time on that new business of his...which is clearly more pressing than school board meetings he was ELECTED to attend.

If you look at it another way, ole Seabass only cast 103 out of a possible 143 votes during regular school board meetings. That means he failed to vote on 27% of the issues presented. More importantly, his absences coincided with some of the more critical issues faced by the school board this year, like:

- staff renewal contracts (2/23/09)
- switching from security guards to 'youth advocates' at the high school (5/26/09)
- Next Steps in tackling the diversity issue (9/14/09)
- District Administrator contract (9/14/09)
- adoption of the 2009-10 budget (9/14/09)
- the annual electors meeting (10/12/09)
- District fiscal audit report (12/14/09)

0.750 might be a great batting average in baseball...but for an elected official...we expect better than operating in 3/4 time.

Dr. No No: The Board Member Who Couldn't Vote "No"

Correction 12-31-09: Due to an error in BoardDocs' handling (and subsequent record ) of multiple motions on a particular vote, this data is in error, and a retraction was posted 12-31-09.

Actually, it turns out that Jim McCourt--who cast only a single "NO" vote (when he was there to actually vote) --- is the King of the "Yes" Men.
John Whalen came in second with only 3 "NO" votes.
Slane slides into 4th place with 4 "NO" votes cast.

A review of school board meetings and voting records offers some very valuable insight.

Calendar year 2009
24 regular school board meetings...
143 votes registered...
Votes nearly always are based on recommendations from administration..

Care to guess which board member was the only one who did not cast a single "NO" vote?

Nope...it wasn't Seabass McCourt! (But good guess! McCourt only cast ONE "No" vote)
Nope...it wasn't John "Do I Look As Uncomfortable Up Here As I Feel" Whalen. (Another logical guess! But Whalen actually cast TWO "No" votes)

Give up?
OK....it was none other than Al "I'm the Outsider on the Board" Slane!!

That's right. Mr. Slane never heard a recommendation from administration he didn't like.
143 votes....and 143 times Slane said "Aye".

How's that for a re-election campaign platform? He can claim he has a perfect voting record!
As in he voted perfectly in line with Administration recommendations.

Gee...for an "outsider" Slane seems pretty well "linked in".
Perhaps his new nickname should be "Aye Aye" Al.

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Sun Prairie Now 3-Year Champ of Property Tax Rates


You may have missed it. The Wisconsin State did it's annual fair comparison of area property taxes. Guess what, chicken butt? Sun Prairie came out on top. Well..technically, Edgerton did, with a $25/$1000 rate. BUT.....that really reflects a correction due to an oops of Sun Prairie School Boardian proportions on last year's tax bills. So... actually, we take the top slot again. Note for those slow on the uptake: being the property tax leader is NOT a good thing.

2009 fair tax rate comparison chart

2008 fair tax rate comparison chart

2007 fair tax rate comparison chart

Oh yeah...but we DID get named one of the top 10 cities for families this past summer. Or did they mean one of the top 10 cities for WEALTHY families.

Monday, December 28, 2009

2009 What a Wild and Sad Year It Was

In our second annual "Year-In-Review" feature, we look back on the sad realities of our school board. It is ever more clearly the administrative tail that wags the elected dog.

January
SP4k - Cash Cow???
HS Principal Keats "Resigns"
And He shall be Known as McSeaBass

February
1st Warning- Mill Rate projected to rise $1.00 for 2009
Spending $36,000 to fix a $59 problem

March
Admin: "Keep co-head BBall Coaches"; School Board: "NOT!"
SP-EYE's Believe It Or Not: Taxpayers pay for "Birthday KitKat Bars"
SPASD Pays $600,000 to City of Sun Prairie for High School Permit Fees

April
Incumbents Re-elected; Welke Runs Strong Write-In Campaign
For UnLawful Carnal Knowledge (of a Student)
The Sad Truth About How The District Reviews Its Checkbook
School Board Celebrity Resemblances Becomes Viral Hit
The Ridiculously High Cost of Academic Decathlon
Board Turns Its Back on Stackhouse; Votes Whalen as President

May
Security Guards? Or "Youth Advocates" to Restore Peace at the High School
Outstanding District....but bottom rung for Scholarship Dollars
Retiring Teachers Average about $70,000
Culver Starts the Anti-Blog

June
Board Signs New Teacher Pact Early Instead of Waiting till July 1 for QEO to be dissolved.
Still Double Digit Expulsions at SPHS
What Recession??!! Teachers get 7.0% increase

July
First Big Raises for teachers...now for Admin and Admin Support
SP-EYE Warned You of the Perfect Storm
Mid-July and no Sign of the budget
Reality Bites - What We Pay Administrative Support Staff vs. Dept. of Labor Job Stats
The Fix is in: Whalen breaks rules and policy to get his man on school board Finance committee

August
Sun Prairie May be in the Top 10 Places for Families...but you better have a LARGE Income
The Diversity Issue...One Hot Potato
Questionable Financial Transactions---Is this the right lot for us to purchase? Yes, the price is $4,000 to $14,000 below that of previous lots...but we have to buy a $10,500 vehicle to transport kids to it!

September
When SCOs Run Amok...A new School Year, a new scandal- "Class Fees"
More Scandals...Shimek Fails Interviewing 101 on Bond Fee Issue
The Meteoric Rise in Property Taxes

October
The Swiftly Changing Face of "Fund Balance"
The Community Sends a LOUD Message to the School Board at the Annual Electors Meeting

November
Furloughs Coming? What ONE day costs the District
Could Next Year be even WORSE for Property Tax Increases?
Under the Sun Prairie [Recession-Proof] Dome....22% increase to $100K Club
More of What the Board Doesn't Tell You - A "3.8% Package Means 4.9% Salary Increase

December
1100 PCs for 1400 Students, but NO Grand Piano for the New Performing Arts Center
Budget Cuts Passed Are a 1-Year Fix Only!

Readers Write: How Would SPASD Fare in a Columbine-Like Scenario?

This from a concerned community member in response to a district-wide failure of phone and internet connections during the week of December 21.


"Interesting decision making yesterday...entire district had no phones or internet...some buildings get no cell phone reception...yet there was no thought into what would happen in the event of a major emergency.


What if some crazy lunatic enters a school with a gun?

Can't call out, can't use cell phones, can't e-mail.


That is why [Administration] get the big bucks huh!

Food for thought?

The Incumbents Are Running!!! The Incumbents Are Running!

Word on the street was that Jim McCourt was going to focus on his new business and forego running for re-election. We also heard from several board members that board members themselves were lobbying hard with Caren Diedrich to NOT run for re-election---so much for unity and decorum, eh? Finally, we heard all kinds of waffling noises coming from Al Slane.

But in the end...all three apparently are actively circulating nomination papers and intend to run again for their less valuable (after October 12, 2009) seats.

We hear that John Welke may be tossing his hat in the ring again. This time, however, he'll be on the ballot. And someone that garnered nearly 900 votes running as a write-in candidate should be a formidable opponent this spring for the lock-step crowd.
We have wondered since last spring how exactly John Whalen obtained the number of votes he did last spring. In fact, old John E Boy himself was even more surprised than we were. Reports indicate that Whalen questioned his chances even very late in the campaign, and really would have preferred not to run.
Does anyone else think that the similarity in names -- John Whalen -- John Welke-- might have played against Welke and FOR Whalen? That people got to the ballot box, and seeing the name "John Whalen" on the ballot (and no "John Welke") that maybe they selected "Whalen", believing they were voting for the challenger not on the ballot?
We'll never know how many people may have simply selected "John Whalen" because the name sounded like that other guy...John Welke.

Maybe we'll find out this April.

Where Exactly IS the "Want/Need" Line?

We appreciate Rick Mealy sharing the following e-mail he received from school board member Al Slane (the only board member to respond we might add). Mr. Mealy e-mailed all board members requesting that his e-mail be read into the meeting record (denied by Whalen). Mealy encouraged the board to provide balance by purchasing 250-300 fewer computers and instead purchasing the Steinway D grand piano required for the Performing Arts Center (which no Board member supported)

Date: Monday, December 21, 2009 11:25 AM
From: Al Slane

To: Rick Mealy
Subject: Re: PUBLIC COMMENT for tonight's meeting

Rick,

Thanks for the input. I was planning to pull this from consent tonight, and I will propose that we send it back to FTT for further refinement.

On the Steinway, I think fund raising is appropriate, as
the piano they want falls on the other side of the want/need line in my opinion.



As an incumbent who is running for re-election, please tell us: "Where exactly DOES the "Want/Need" line fall, Mr. Slane?"
Inquiring minds would like to know.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

PC-Gate Continues - More Details Come to Light

Yesterday, we received a response from school district Technology Manager Michael Mades. We requested a complete accounting of the 1100 PCs planned to be purchased for the new high school.

Lest you forget....the doors will open with about 1400 kids, with a maximum of 2000 kids.

Mr. Mades provided the following accounting for the PCs:


Date: Monday, December 21, 2009 9:11 AM
From: Michael Mades


Subject: Re: PCs for high school

The 1100 computers for the new high school are designated as follows:

Computer Labs: 8 labs; 226 computers (26-29 computers per lab) [That's 28.25 per lab, or the high end of their range]
Classrooms/Instructional Areas: 749 computers (Classrooms: 5-13 computers)
Library Media Center: 52 computers
Offices: 38 computers (Administrative offices: 10, including administrators, secretaries, program manager and police liaison officer)

Staff work areas: 35 computers

Regards, Mike
Michael Mades
Supervisor of Technology
Sun Prairie Area School District
Sun Prairie, Wisconsin 53590
Phone: 608.834.6509

Please note, folks that the Classroom 2010 Technology plan calls for between 5-12 computers per classroom.
There's already ONE per classroom for the Smartboard in each class.
The plan is for 749 PCs in 100 classrooms (if every room is included), or 7.5 PCs per classroom.
So...once again, cutting 250 PCs (from 749 to 500) would STILL leave 5 PCs per classroom...which meets the range specified in the technology plan. If they REALLY need more later, they can request to purchase them down the road.
And the savings would allow the district to purchase the quality grand piano needed in the Performing Arts Center. Then maybe the Band Boosters can raise money for future service and maintenance on the piano, or to help bring in feature performing artists.

It's called compromise, school board...look it up. You might also find it under "equity".

John E. Won't Read

Stardate Monday December 21, 2009
Salamander-in Chief John E. Whalen presiding.
John E Boy receives a written request from a community member -who is unable to appear before the board-- to read a very brief statement during the public comment section of the agenda.

Nothing groundbreaking here. Whalen has done this before. He has read lengthy prepared statements from community resident Monte Couch. Instead, last nite, Whalen used some sort of self-bestowed executive privilege to summarize this community resident';s comments into a very succinct sentence:

"Mr. Mealy has submitted a letter....I won't read it....but basically Mr. Mealy believes that too many PCs are being purchased for the new high school."

Very nice, John E Boy! Very succinct. But we wonder why you refused to read the actual message...as you have done previously. It wouldn't be something so petty as retaliation because SP-EYE has not exactly painted you in a positive light...hmmm?

Or was it maybe that the message made a little too much sense and exposed the district and school board for simply spending taxpayers money too freely After all, Mr. Frei pointed out that, "If we don't spend referendum money within 6 months of project completion , then we have to return any leftover funds to the taxpayers. GASP! We wouldn't want to do that, would we.

So you folks decide...where was the harm in John E Boy reading the following?


Dear School Board Members:
I am asking that you seriously re-consider the purchase of 1375 computers for the new high school and UMS. I understand that 275 of these are ear-marked for the UMS, leaving 1100 PCs for the new high school.


Please do a little math.

There are approximately 100 classrooms in the new high school.

1 PC in each brings the tally down to 1000 PCs.

Let's reserve 100 PCs for administrative staff...which is a pretty generous tally.

That leaves us with 900 PCs.

Sources tell me there are 3 computer labs in the existing high school, each with about 30 PCs.

Let's say 100 PCs per 3 computer labs.
Even if we double the number of computer labs to 6, that only requires 200 PCs
...leaving us with 700 PCs for which a home is needed.

That's a lot of UNDESIGNATED PCs.
I'd also bring your attention to the fact that we are building a state-of-the-art Performing Arts Center.
Every PAC requires at least one major piece of equipment--a grand piano.

But we didn't allocate any referendum money to purchase a grand piano.

Instead, the Bernie Powers Band Foundation is forced to raise money through private donations to purchase a piano.

And that doesn't seem right.

Yes, technology is important, but I think the school board should make a compromise and reduce the number of PCs purchased by the amount needed to purchase the Steinway D grand piano being sought.

A little math says that about 250-300 less PCs would free up funds to purchase the piano. By all means, if the BPBF wishes to raise money to secure long-term piano maintenance funding, that's a more tangible --and equitable--goal.

Can you create a holiday miracle that provides ALL students with the tools they need?

It means purchasing 800 PCs instead of 1100, and we can't even identify homes for more than 400.

It takes a village to raise a child, but it takes a school board to make the appropriate decisions.

Thank you.

Rick Mealy
Sun Prairie


Band boosters take note. You folks deserve to have a grand piano for the Performing Arts Center, and you shouldn't have to raise money for it independently. We can have PLENTY of technology AND a grand piano. But you'll need to call or write school board members.

Interestingly enough, this item got tabled at last night's meeting. The amount of PCs to purchase has been sent back to FTT for "re-tweaking" based on a motion by Al Slane. Hmmm. You smell that? What's Slane got cooking?

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Computers: $700,000 Grand Piano: $0

Number of PCs being purchased for the new high school: 1100

Number of pianos being purchased for the new "state of the art" Performing Arts Center: 0

Number of students per PC on opening day at the new high school: 1.25 (1400 to 1100).

But NO grand piano for the performing arts center.

Wait....that's not entirely correct. The Bernie Powers Band Foundation is raising the $135,000 necessary to purchase a top shelf Steinway D grand piano for the Performing Arts Center.

They shouldn't have to.

This wasn't even worthy of an official agenda item at the school board's FTT meeting--only an "Informational Item".

Yes, Virginia...technology (PCs) is important. But isn't music (and the arts) equally important??

N'est ce pas?

At $500 each....why not buy 270 fewer PCs and use the $135,000 savings to purchase a grand piano out of the referendum money??

That would still mean 830 NEW PCs at the new high school, for a projected 1400 students? Even taking out 100 of those PCs for staff, that leaves us with 730 PCs for students, or one for every 2 students. Even at capacity (2000) 730 PCs would translate to 1 PC for every 3 students.

And those are more than acceptable numbers.

Why should the public have to pony up more cash to buy a piano that should come included with a $100 M high school?

Ask your school board members. Instead of rationalizing things independently, they only rubber stamp what administration "suggests".

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

What would YOU do with a $100,000,000 Checkbook?

A funny thing happened during this week's Finance Committee meeting.

During the check approval segment of the agenda, citizen rep Rick Mealy asked why check # 98047 to Klinke Cleaners for $594 ---for cleaning of band uniforms--appeared on the high school construction charges log.

Check# 98047
Vendor: Klinke Cleaners
Amount: $594
Comment: HS Band uniform dry cleaning

All members of the committee--and all meeting attendees-- got quite a chuckle. "It's an error", suggested committee chair Terry Shimek. Phil Frei agreed, "That's probably just an error and we'll clean that up."

End of story right? We got a good chuckle and the joke is over...right?

Wrong.

Phil Frei sent the following e-mail out Tuesday afternoon:

Subject: Klinke Cleaner check question
From: Phil Frei [pfrei@spasd.k12.wi.us]
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 2:38 PM
To: Al Slane ‎[aaslane@spasd.k12.wi.us]‎; Caren Diedrich ‎[crdiedr@spasd.k12.wi.us]‎; David Stackhouse ‎[dastack@spasd.k12.wi.us]‎; Jill Camber Davidson ‎[jacambe@spasd.k12.wi.us]‎; John Whalen ‎[jewhale@spasd.k12.wi.us]‎; James McCourt ‎[jrmccou@spasd.k12.wi.us]‎; Tim Culver ‎[tculver@spasd.k12.wi.us]‎; Terry Shimek ‎[twshime@spasd.k12.wi.us]‎
Cc: Roger Fetterly ‎[fetterly@charter.net]‎; Rick Mealy ‎[rmealy@charter.net]‎; pastorrayford@fhlfamily.com; Rhonda Page ‎[rspage@spasd.k12.wi.us]‎

.......................................................
Last night at the Finance Meeting there was a question why a Kilnke Cleaner bill showed up on the construction related bills.

Last summer during construction (at the current HS) some band uniforms (tuxedos) got dirty and needed to be dry cleaned. Since this occurred because of the construction, the bill was coded to the construction account.




Hmmm... so it happened during the summer. We only received an invoice on Hallowe'en (of all dates!). We're just paying it in mid-December?


CHECK#_VENDOR___________INVOICE DATE___AMOUNT
98047__KLINKE CLEANERS___10/31/2009_____$594.00

Hold the phone, Tyrone!
Even if the uniforms got a little dusty from construction, is it REALLY appropriate to charge this to the construction fund, which was earmarked for costs due to the construction and equipping of the high school and upper middle school?

Now that the budget is tight are we going to finagle some way of charging every little thing to the construction account...that $100M checkbook funded by John Q. Taxpayer?

We don't think so.

What's next? A little construction dust finds its way into 250 PCs --which just so happen to be at the 5-yr replacement date---and then you'll want to charge the replacement cost (plus 1400 NEW PCs) to the construction account????

Kinda sounds like a game of tit for tat. You mean taxpayers cut our tax levy by $2M so by gosh, by golly, we are going to spend every red cent of that $100M referendum money.

This district just gets crazier by the minute.

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Points to Ponder: $1M in PC/Smartboard purchases

At tomorrow night's FTT meeting, bids for PCs and Smartboards for the new high school will be discussed.

Yes, opening a new high school costs a lot of money to equip. But we learned with the erection of Creekside that we bought expensive Smartboards for EVERY classroom, yet there are still classrooms that aren't being used! More to the point, we hear reports that not only are teachers not unilaterally enamored with the Smartboards, but we also hear frequent reports that the equipment doesn't always work well.

So the question our school board SHOULD (but won't) be asking is: Do we really need all of these? Or is this a place to reduce costs. No one's talking about degrading the state of technology such that the quality of education declines. It's a fair question. And a fiscally conscious school board would be asking the question, particularly in light of the state of the economy.

$3000/smartboard x 121 = $355K
$500/PC x 1375 PCs = $687K

That's over $1,000,000!


The "wreckers" out there will pick and nit and nit and pick, all the while suggesting that we are anti-technology, or even anti-education. Bah! Hamburg! Empty rhetoric, we say.

The questions we are asking are quite simply...do we need every single one of 1375 PCs to open the new high school? No teacher should be forced to use any particular technology. Subsequently, rather than fixed-mounting a Smartboard in every classroom, why don't we purchase a number of mobile platforms that teachers could use on a limited term basis as fits in with their curriculum?

We repeat...these should be questions posed by the school board of administration--not the community! Oh...and the board all reads this blog, and thus we even expect to hear some of these questions tomorrow night, But...in the end...the board will do what it does best...rubber stamp their approval with a 7-0 vote of approval.

Could this be one of those places where we save the taxpayers money at this juncture and purchase what we need? Then, down the road, we could purchase additional equipment as it becomes truly necessary. Having a wealth of technology is less of a value if it is not being used. In fact, warranties could expire before the equipment even gets broken in.

We also wonder why we wouldn't be migrating some PCs from PVMS and PMMS to the UMS and some PCs from the existing HS to the new HS???

One final point to consider is that the district operates off of a 5-yr PC replacement cycle. If we buy 1375 PCs today at a cost of nearly 3/4 of a MILLION dollars, then aren't we going to have that cost (plus others on the 5-yr cycle) 5 years from now?





RECOMMENDATION: The Supervisor of Technology recommends the approval of the bid to purchase 121 SmartBoards, 121 projectors and wall mounts, and 129 Smart audio systems, for a total bid of $354,906, from Tierney Brothers, Inc, Minneapolis, MN.





RECOMMENDATION: The Supervisor of Technology recommends the approval of the bid to purchase 1,375 Dell desktop computers with 4 GB RAM, 17 inch monitor, and 3 year warranty, for $497.34 each [Total Cost $683,842.50] , from Heartland Business Systems, Little Chute, Wisconsin.

An extended warranty option was considered for desktops and laptops. Current policy targets a useful life of five years; leaving two years uncovered by warranty. Due to the additional cost of the extra warranty, and the number of computers being purchase, we feel it is too expensive and unnecessary to purchase the additional warranty.The recommended systems are $91.66 less than we paid this year, for a savings of $126,032.50.

Of Slipshod Work and Non-Responsiveness

The following is a correspondence from Roger Fetterly to the school board last week, which--to no one's surprise---has gone unanswered. So much for community engagement and quality work product.

At the Finance Committee meeting on 11/23/09, citizen --and former multi-term school board member---Roger Fetterly pointed out a discrepancy between the School District FY2008-09 Audit Report, which was reported by Kevin Krysinski of Johnson and Block, and the information presented to the electors in the 2009 Annual Meeting report.

Fetterly pointed out that the Annual Meeting budget report for Fund 10 shows an Ending Fund Balance, Designated of $7,130,391.38 and an Ending Fund Balance, Unappropriated of $762,815.27 at June 30, 2009.

By WUFAR (Wisconsin Uniform Financial Accounting Requirements) definition, the Unappropriated fund balance is the difference between revenues and expenditures at the end of a fiscal period and is commonly referred to as the surplus remaining at the end of the fiscal year.

The audit report Balance Sheet (page 3 of the audit) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009 for the General Fund shows Fund Balance, Designated of $7,893,208 and there is no Unappropriated balance shown.

It appears that the auditor combined the Designated and the Unappropriated amounts into one fund and identified it all as Fund Balance, Designated. When Fetterly queried Kevin Krysinski, Krysinski said his audit was based on the financial records provided by administration. He said he would have shown the Unappropriated amount (in accordance with the WUFAR accounting system) if the financial records showed the Unappropriated amount.

Therein lies a problem. There was no formal action by the school board (as required by WUFAR, which states, "Changes in this account results from formal budgetary action.") to shift the Unappropriated balance into the Fund Balance, Designated. It appears that the administration has exceeded its authority and is manipulating fund balance amounts to serve its own convenience and purpose.

Fetterly pointed this out to Terry Shimek and the Finance Committee and the chair's response was to shrug it off and proceed to accept the audit without question. Fetterly --and SP-EYE-- believe that the public deserves an explanation why the audit and the financial records and reports to the electors have an unexplained discrepancy for which the board has no rational answer.

Therein lies the second--and perhaps most egregious --problem. While the board and administration may find sloppy accounting to be an acceptable practice (Hmmm...would any of our teachers accept similarly shoddy work????), it is wholly unacceptable to disregard any resident that presents a valid concern. SP-EYE has been party to and has heard third party reports of "unofficial" statements from several board members who have sheepishly agreed that the board has spoken about and agrees to summarily dismiss any presentation by a "select few" residents. Care to guess which ones? SP-EYE does not recall such a group discussion transpiring at an officially noticed public meeting....gee...yet another incidence of violation of public meeting laws?

Also, on page 32 of the audit under "2009-10 Budget," is the following statement: "The District budget anticipates applying general fund balance of $1,879,643 in 2009-10 and the District will act on reducing the reduction of fund balance throughout the year." That statement does not reflect the action of the school board and has no place in an audit which should be providing reliable and factual information. That statement apparently reflects the wishes and recommendations of the administration. Fetterly commented that the appearance is that the auditor is a little too cozy with the administration to get an independent factual report on the financial condition of the district. At best that statement can only be described as speculative.

On a slightly different but related matter, after Tim Culver stated that the "State budget is a mess," it turns out that he and Phil Frei produced a budget mess of their own at the district level. Their biggest problem is that they are unwilling or incapable of following the state statutes, DPI administrative rules, guidelines and recommended formats for budget planning, presentation and reporting purposes.

1. The administration and the board dithered for months and did not have even a recommendation on July 1 when the budget for the 2009-10 fiscal year should have gone into effect. Remember, it was Tim and Phil that coerce the electors to change the annual meetings from July to October which allows very little time to meet November reporting deadlines.

2. The board was complicit in creating the mess by rushing to approve overly generous employee master contracts, administrative compensation plans and new spending programs such as 4K before revenue estimates were available.

3. When the board and the administration finally got around to it, they tried to adopt a budget before the public hearing was held at the annual meeting, ignorant of the fact that the only authority the board has prior to the annual meeting is to present a proposed budget at the public hearing.

4. Subsequent to the annual meeting, the board dithered again without adopting the budget until October 26th when the administration provided the following recommendation: "The Deputy District Administrator (Business & Operations) recommends the adoption of the 2009-2010 Budget (with October adjustments) as it appears in [Budget item] attachment 5." There was only one slight problem; attachment 5 does not show a budget for the capital projects fund (Funds 41, 48, 49) and the food service fund (Fund 50), in addition to other funds not shown. It appears that the board has only adopted part of the budget presented to the electors at the annual meeting. Is the board going to get around to correcting this problem, or is food serve and other operations going to continue operating without an adopted budget? How was this covered in the budget report to DPI? It is evident that the board doesn't understand the budget so they just do what the administration wants them to do.

5. Another problem with adoption of the budget as shown in attachment 5 is that it is entitled "Budget adjustments 2009-2010." If you understood the law (Sec 65.90 Wis. Stats.) you would know that adopting a budget and making budget adjustments are two separate and distinct decisions an can not be legitimately mixed together. After the public hearing at the annual meeting the budget should be adopted by the board, subject only to changes resulting from the annual meeting. All other changes to the adopted budget must follow Section 65.90(5), Wis Stats., which requires a 2/3 vote of the entire board and a public notice within 10 days. If Phil and Tim are trying to confuse the board and the public---they are doing a great job.

6. A 3rd problem with attachment 5 is shown under the column titled "2009-2010 APPROVED BUDGET." The budget shown under that column was never legitimately approved. At best it was the budget that was proposed to the electors at the annual meeting. The first line of the so called "2009-2010 APPROVED BUDGET" shows "taxes" and gives the amount $36,678,662.

The electors, exercising their statutory authority, rejected that proposal from the board and voted a tax levy of $34,678,662, or $2,000,000 lower than what was proposed by the administration and the board. So---to list $36,678,662 as the "taxes" in the 2009-2010 APPROVED BUDGET is pure nonsense.

To show the $34,678,662 as the taxes under the "2009-2010 AMENDED BUDGET" column is a gross error. The electors vote to establish the tax levy at $34,678,662 could not be an amendment to the so called "2009-2010 APPROVED BUDGET" as it was displayed on attachment 5, and in the public notice published in the STAR. It appears too difficult for the administration and the board to understand that there could not be an approved budget prior to the annual meeting, the board can only present a proposed budget. To characterize the elector's vote to reduce the tax levy by $2,000,000 as an amendment to an approved budget is misleading and a falsehood created by the administration.

7. In addition to all of the substantive errors in this mess of a budget, someone should have proofread the board documents one more time. On the second page of attachment 5, and the second page of what was referred to as attachment 1 (but not marked as such) and the public notice printed in the STAR on October 29th and approved by Clerk Jill Camber Davidson, in addition to all the errors identified above, the columns under the DEBT SERVICE FUND are identified as "2009-20109 APPROVED BUDGET" and "2009-20109 AMENDED BUDGET." What kind of dates are those? It is reasonable to expect, that with at least 3 highly paid administrators and 7 school board members reading these documents (for comprehension, we assume), that someone would notice typos and correct them. Who is responsible for this sloppy work?

8. Finally, in the 2009-2010 Annual Meeting Report, on page 17, there is a math error in TOTAL ENDING FUND BALANCE under the Budget 2009-2010 column---the numbers don't add up! A computer spreadsheet is smart enough to add up a column of numbers if someone knows how to tell it what to do. What this tells me is that you have administrators and/or staff that don't know how to use a spreadsheet or a calculator.

SP-EYE: Mr. Fetterly is --to quote Marisa Tomei in 'My Cousin Vinny'-- "dead on balls accurate". The board needs to take action to correct the mess---no excuses. Mr. Fetterly is owed an apology, and the board needs to change its attitude towards citizens they don't particularly care for. The school board's Finance Committee and the school board owe the community an explanation and the corrective action taken to prevent such a mediocre performance again. The board's credibility depends on it.

Monday, December 7, 2009

$1,106,572 To $15,334

Jeopardy question of the week:
A ratio of 1,106,572 to 15,334

The Answer:
What is the ratio of ONE YEAR (2009-10) budget savings relative to PERMANENT savings approved by the school board at its November 23, 2009 meeting.

Batten the hatches and sew your pockets shut, because the bounceback WILL be here next fall. And that means a BIGGER double digit increase to property taxes next year.

If the school board doesn't mandate * PERMANENT * budget cuts -- and they didn't -- then come this spring, we'll be squarely back at square one. AND...we have the costs of opening the new high school and middle school to boot.

Someone PLEASE explain to the school board that one-year budget cuts don't cut it. We need to get the broom and make some sweeping changes to spending.

...or is the mentality that "they" (school board and district administration) can fill the room with a majority of electors at next year's meeting? Hmm.

That kind of gambling is an illness, folks.

Sunday, December 6, 2009

What If Gus Didn't Get On The Bus?

We're hearing reports about an incident at Horizon Elementary last week...

Allegedly...a heads-up teacher was looking for a child that was supposed to be in class. Horizon staff put in a call to Kobussen Busing - allegedly to Simon Gilliam to determine if the child (who typically rides the bus) was on/got off the bus.

Allegedly calls from Horizon to Kobussen were not returned for some time. Meanwhile a frantic search ensued for 2 hours. It turns out (thankfully) that the missing young scamp was at home the whole time and the parent didn't know about it.

Here we have the school freaking out, staff freaking out, the parent was freaking out and...one key link in the chain was MIA.

Of course, we only hear a small percentage of these incidents, but it reminds us of two incidents that occurred during the first week of school this year. In these cases, 2 different children--ESL kids at that-- did not get home after school. One "transferred incorrectly" and ended up where they did not belong, while the other was left behind on the bus (the bus was not properly 'cleared; after the last stop), and when the bus driver finally noticed a head peeking out while RTB, said driver allegedly took the child to his/her home. Unfortunately, the now frantic parents were NOT at home--they had gone to the school to get their child! Theswe are elementary school kids, people! Some are under 7 years old!

It wasn't too far back that the FTT committee initiated a witch hunt of sorts to somehow wrestle the Special Ed busing contract from Teri Bedner and T-Durst. Yep...the very same individual and bus company that devotes so much time and effort (not to mention bus service) to provide for a special holiday party for special needs children.

File that under "Things That Make You Go, "Hmmm". Or...give Al Slane a call and strongly suggest that it's time to air busing issues/concerns out formally as an agenda item at an FTT meeting.

'Tis The Season...

As the holidays approach at break-neck speed, you may be asking yourself, "Should I get something for my child's teacher? If so, what is appropriate?"

A recent survey by Consumer Reports (which also appears in section C3 of today's Wisconsin State Journal) offers the following guidance based on what others did as recently as last year:

What do people give their child's teacher(s) at the holidays?
  • 56% of respondents gave something (2nd only to cleaning persons)
  • 20% gave cash or a gift card
  • 38% gave a [tangible] gift
  • The median value of all gifts was $20.

Fun factoid: 8% of people gave their garbage collector cash, a gift card, or a gift

You should also note school board policy GBI, which addresses the subject in (typical) generic fashion.

POLICY GBI
STAFF GIFTS AND SOLICITATIONS

Adopted by the School Board: September 25, 1978
Revised by the School Board: January 12, 2009

Students, parents/guardians, and other patrons of the District shall not be encouraged to present gifts to district employees on occasions such as holidays. The Board shall consider as always welcome, and in most circumstances more appropriate, the writing of letters to staff members expressing gratitude or appreciation.

Saturday, December 5, 2009

Skewed Sense of Equality at SPASD

Word on the street is that administration is forcing Local 60 workers to reduce their hours to what would amount to ONE "furlough day" (the same number of furlough days being imposed on administration). The mantra being preached is "Equality"....Everybody 'takes one for the team' and takes a furlough day to help save money and reduce the budget.

The Perfect Storm is raging upon us. SP-Eye predicted it on July 5th 2009...now the storm is upon us and the lowly paid Local 60 support staff is going to take the brunt of the storms force square on the chin while admin and teachers get raises. ...talk about driving a wedge between the teachers and their support staff!

We understand that the District Office is telling Local 60 workers that they should take a voluntary furlough day. Local 60 said, "No", so the DO will impose it in the next contract. Morale is very bad and Local 60 see the administrators and teachers getting raises but they are getting bussed by admin. A true group of leaders would take another furlough day to prevent local 60 from a forced furlough day. The teachers (SPEA) voted against a voluntary furlough day.

Here's a novel idea. If the average Local 60 worker makes about $15 bucks per hour, while members of the $100K Club earn $50-60 per hour, why aren't administrators forced to take FOUR furlough days for every ONE day (8 hours) cut that is forced upon Local 60?

Who, exactly, is hurting these days? Do you think it's the fat cat administration sipping on their venti mocha lattes with real whipped cream and dark chocolate shavings? Or is it the Local 60 folks that get paid barely enough to operate from check to check?

Friday, December 4, 2009

That $@#%! Community!!!!!

Everyone wanted their big fat raises...well...except for Local 60 workers, who didn't get what we'd term 'big fat' raises. Yes...RAISES...despite burgeoning unemployment, wage cuts, and furloughs across the state and nation.

And so the community said, "We've had enough of this outrageous spending" at the annual electors meeting as they reduced the tax levy by $2M. And NOW the district wants to snipe at the community? How dare they!

We've said it before...but perhaps we need to say it again:

If 85% of the annual budget is in personnel costs, then the ONLY long-term solution to keeping district spending (and thus property taxes) in check is to do something about the steady rise in personnel costs. We have a LOT of high paid management, folks!

You want to turn the temperature back up? Then give a tad more on personnel.

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Has Keats Returned to SPASD?

Inquiring minds have been asking, "Whatever happened to Paul Keats?"
Is the answer buried in the
Human Resources Table from September 14, 2009?



September 14, 2009
SCHOOL BOARD
Routine Personnel through Human Resources Committee – Hires, Transfers and Resignations

Position Title/Location_______Person Recommended Base Salary FTE*
Cleaner – Nights District Wide ___ Keats, Paul_______ $12.49 per hr. 0.4375


If this is indeed former high school principal Paul Keats, then we respect his level of pride to return to the belly of the beast in a lesser capacity. As some of us who aren't among the $100K Club well understand--sometimes a man needs to do what a man needs to do for his family.

Of course the flip side viewpoint is that this would only serve as yet another underscoring of the fate that awaits (s)he who falls out of the graces of King Culver.

Some community members have great eyes for detail to have caught this. Thanks for alerting us.

Monday, November 23, 2009

Something We've Been Wondering...

If school board & committee meeting agendas are published in the STAR...

...and the STAR's deadline for ads is Tuesday at noon...

...doesn't that mean that the agendas are ready by late Monday?

So WHY don't the agendas get published on the *amazing* BoardDocs website until late Thursday (and even as late as --ahem!-Friday morning) prior to the Monday meetings?

Ponder that one over your morning coffee.
Can you say "Community Engagement"?
There...we knew you could.

Oh we KNOW the answer...we're just wondering if you do.

Here's what BoardDocs says about availability of agendas:
" A limited number of paper copies of agendas will be available at the District Office.Agendas may be available for public view up to 5 days before the meeting. "

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

The 21 administrators for which we have 2009-10 raise information received a whopping cumulative increase of $88,128! That's an average of $ 4,197 EACH per year!

Raise your hand if you received anything CLOSE to that as a raise this year. How about a loud raspberry if you LOST salary this year. We thought so.

21 Administrators

$88,128 in annual salary increases.

Raises as much as $6,050 per year!

And collectively going all "boo-hoo" on us at the thought (GASP!) of having their wages cut by ONE day via a 1-day furlough.

And what is it they want the school board to cut? Hmm?
Ferris Bueller? Anyone?
It's up to the school board to stop the madness at the meeting tonite.
We're sunk.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

"3.8%" Package Increase Means Average 4.9% Salary Increase

You'll recall that the administration group graciously declined their "full merited compensation increase" and instead asked that the deal be capped at 3.8%.

[insert forlorn-sounding violin sequence]

So finally we know how that all translated into salary increases. Because you SHOULD know by now that a "package" increase amount usually translates to a much higher salary increase. But the district/board would prefer you not understand that.
So...here you have it...the actual raises received. Nice, huh?

Athletic Director Jim McClowry and Director of Food Service Renee Slotten-Beauchamp hit the jackpot with respective raises of 7.5% and 7.2%.

You'll see that Dr. Culver is at the bottom as he requested that he receive no raise. Funny...he still shows an increase!

The average raise received was 4.9%. At the bottom (excluding Culver)was Chad Wiedmeyer, Principal of Bird Elementary, who received only a 2.4% raise.

Hmmm. Historically, all salary dollars allocated for raises are placed in a "pot", and the amount of raise one receives is based on the result of their annual performance review. And Culver makes these determinations. Could this be an indication that Wiedmeyer has accumulated too many trips to Culver's woodshed?

7 administrators received raises of at least 5.0%.
It definitely cannot suck to be a member of the SPASD Administration.

22% Increase to the $100K Club Membership!

Well, the economy isn't all sour.
The school district has added 22% more members to the district administration $100K Club!
Currently 11 of 27.5 (40%) administrative positions are paid more than $100,000 per year.

If Obama really wants to fix the economy we just need to create more school districts and school district administration jobs.

Title__________________Administrator_____2009-10 salary
District Administrator...Culver..........$ 140,786
Asst DA, Business Mgr....Frei............$ 121,900
Director, Spec Ed........Dawes...........$ 113,964
Principal, PMMS..........Luessman........$ 112,496
Principal, PVMS..........Hery............$ 112,172
Director, Instruction....Murphy..........$ 112,088
Director, HR.............Mikula..........$ 111,844
Principal, SPHS..........Heipl...........$ 110,000
Principal, CS............Smojver.........$ 106,892
Principal, UMS...........Ruggles.........$ 100,711
Principal, HO............Klaas...........$ 100,118


Who'dathunk that middle school principals would be paid more than a high school principal?
or that an Upper middle school principal would be paid LESS than an elementary school principal?

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Microexpressions Are So Revealing

You may have missed this on the local news this week, but as part of
WKOW-TV's "Call for action" segment
, [Note: there is a 12 second Wisconsin lottery video preceding the segment] the district came under fire for a decision to no longer provide busing for middle school students living in the Golden Meadows subdivision.

Interviewer:" Phil....You've got to think something may be wrong with the system if parents are paying $100 per month for their kid to take a taxi to school when maybe the school bus should be taking them. "
Phil Frei: "Well, it could be, but it's been determined by the people of Sun Prairie that 2 miles is our limit."
Freeze the camera. Yup...right there when Phil turns slightly away from the camera, pauses to close his eye for an un-naturally long blink, and has a severely pursed lip. What does that expression tell you? And Frei's response to the interviewer....?

Come on, Phil! That doesn't even remotely pass the straight face test! The community did not make that decision...the school board did...based on the recommendation of administration (i.e., you).

The school board discussed this issue at it's July 27, 2009 meeting and voted 6-1 (Diedrich opposed) to eliminate the busing for middle school students from Golden Meadows. See the information at this link.

Why are you throwing the community under the bus?

Friday, November 20, 2009

Re-Stating The Obvious

You gotta love the Administration "Impact" commentary added to proposed one-time budget savings proposals for 2009-10.

Proposed One-Time Savings, to Start in 2009-2010

I. Reduction in hours for all Local-60 staff, equivalent to one day. (Savings: $22,655)
301.4 staff; average salary per day : $75 ($9.375/hr)

J. Administrative furlough day, June 18, 2009 (Savings: $ 12,639)
27.5 staff, average salary per day : $460 ($57.50/hr)

K. Administrative support furlough day, June 18, 2009. (Savings: $ 7,848)
28.5125 staff, average salary per day : $275 ($34/hr)


" These reductions impact morale and may impact the future ability of the district to recruit and retain quality _________ [CHOOSE ONE: administrators, administrative support staff, Local 60 staff ]. "

Oh get over yourselves! You're losing ONE freakin' day's pay!

A number of local folks are UNEMPLOYED, as in an EVERY day furlough--without fringe benefits!

A number of other local folks have taken pay cuts of 10-20%,

State workers and many county workers are being furloughed SIXTEEN DAYS over the next 2 years!

Oh...wait! These cuts will impact morale!?? Well...shoot...we can't do that then, can we?
Good Lord...you tell US that 80-85% of the budget is personnel costs and then when you need to make cuts you tell us that we shouldn't do that because it might affect morale.

Newsflash! Arguably, a majority of community members are growing weary of your collective whining. You think you can improve your morale somewhere else? Fine. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Enough of the mollycoddling!

Administration Works to Resolve Property Tax "Bounce-back"...NOT!

Remember that ultimately annoying, but maniacally gleeful cry of "NOT!" shouted out by characters Wayne Campbell or Garth Algar (of SNL's "Wayne's World" fame) immediately following any insincere comment? That's what immediately comes to mind as we read through the district's proposals for "budget reductions".

Oh yes...the proposed "budget cuts" have been released, and will be up for discussion at next Monday's (11-23-09) school board meeting.

You'll recall that ultimate goal was to respond to the school board directive to "find" at least $1.1M in budget cuts for this year (2009-10) in order to limit the amount of fund balance required to balance the budget to about $800K.

"Logic would dictate...", as Spock so frequently began his monologues, that any such "cuts" would have been geared towards those permanent in nature. Permanent cuts are necessary to avoid the "bounce-back" to property taxes next year. Of course, since when does the district administration proceed according to some logical path?

The annual operating budget for 2009-10 is $68,800,000.
The amount of permanent cuts proposed: $21,000.

That's right. We didn't forget any zeros. These proposed "permanent" measures trim this year's spending by 0.023% and future spending by no more than 0.03%. And actually, that percentage will drop lower due to the District's propensity for increasing it's budget at a rate of 5-6% annually.

Guess the school board needed to be more clear in their directive.
Or does administration really see what transpired at October 12's annual meeting as an isolated "glitch", and the community will gladly dig deep into their pockets next year, and all future years, to shell out phenomenal property tax increases?

Of course, if we all received compensation approaching $150,000 per year, we might feel that way, too. NOT!!!!

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

2010-11 Tax Levy Picture If We Don't Stop the Madness

Rough Projections for 2011-12 (assuming NO recurring budget cuts)


Please...take these projections with a grain of salt. The assumptions used are that the state economy and equalized aid picture doesn't change very much (which seems valid). It assumes a 3% increase in property value...which we think is pretty Pollyanna. Lastly, it assumes the district continues their spend-happy ways and increases its expenditures by 6%.


That being said...at least we can offer them. The school district holds this information very close to the vest.

  • Budgeted Expenditures (up 6%) : $ 72.6M
  • Projected state aid (44% of expenditures): $ 32.0M
  • That leaves $40.6M of expenditures paid through general fund tax levy
  • Then we have to add another $9.5M for debt service levy
  • That makes for a total tax levy projection of: $ 50.1M
  • Which translates to an increase of 13.2% over what was levied this year.
  • That 13.2% is the "bounceback" being discussed.
    ...and it could be even higher due to costs associated with opening the new high school.
  • Assume the equalized value (of all property) rises 3% to $ 4,020,000,000 (which is a pretty optimistic projection)
  • Mill rate is calculated as TAX LEVY divided by the EQUALIZED VALUE
  • That translates to a mill rate of $12.47

...and it could be mnuch higher than that...if the equalized property value stays flat, the mill rate climbs to $12.86 per $1,000.

Budget Insider - Is Bounce-Back a Real Threat?

Bounce-Back. Rebound. Whiplash.
We all heard the warnings from certain school board members and district administration:

"If you take money out of fund balance to reduce the levy, it's a 1-year solution. Next year you'll be facing bounce-back."

True? In principle, sure.

In practice? That depends.
But, first, what exactly is this bounceback they're talking about?

In a nutshell, what it means is that next year we'll get hit with the property tax increase we avoided by using fund balance this year PLUS the additional hit of property tax increase due to NEXT year's spending.

In an oversimplified world, it's like using your savings account to make a mortgage payment when you're running short in a given month. The next month comes along, and you still have to make that mortgage payment, but now your savings account has taken a sizable hit. So unless you've done something to improve cash flow, you'll be in a pinch again. With the school district, it's more like your next month's mortgage payment actually increases 6%.

But that all presumes that we do nothing to curb the spending.


Tax Levy = (Operating costs - State Aid) + Debt Levy

Of those variables, what exactly can we change?
State Aid is only increased with increased enrollment.
(That was the logic behind using the 4K as a "cash cow" for the district.)
The Debt Levy is something we're stuck with; the only remedy is to refinance some of the debt.
The bottom line is that we need to trim our operating costs.


What are the (current) district operating costs?

District administration budgeted to spend $68,500,000.
Over the last several years, the budget (spending) has increased by about 6% per year.
Salaries and fringe benefits account for 80-85% of operating costs.


How do we avoid/minimize "bounce-back"?

  • We simply need to spend less.

  • We cannot continue adding 6% to the budget operating costs every year.

  • We need to be more efficient with the resources available.

  • When personnel costs represent 80- 85% of the budget, the only logical place to target is the 800 lb gorilla in the room---personnel.
Statewide, inflated salaries in school districts are an on-going issue. Our school board needs to ignore what other districts are not doing, and blaze their own trail for re-adjusting compensation package benchmarks.


The board also will need to make some changes to the salary structure for teaching staff. Folks...a simple reality is that when we have kindergarten teachers retiring with salaries just shy of $80,000, something is wrong. There are medical professionals who save lives every day that don't earn that much. No one will disagree that teachers' jobs are important. And an effective teacher can even ultimately "save" the life of a student. But the relative cost in terms of dollars and cents has become too high. Especially when contracts are for 190 days vs. 260 days for the average worker. Everyone thinks that they deserve a higher salary. We get that. But the education system is rapidly spinning out of control.

What we cannot do
We cannot keep dipping into fund balance. That's a fact, Jack.
The board /district is correct when they warn that doing so represents a temporary (1-year) solution. We WILL continue to need to need short-term borrowing, and any further hits to fund balance WILL affect the interest rate we can obtain. More importantly, fund balance is not a bottomless source of funds.

Saturday, November 14, 2009

YOU Do the Math: One Day Without Pay

Haven't you heard? "Grease" used to be the word. Now, "furlough" is the word!
Google "furlough Wisconsin" and you get over 597,000 hits.

In the 80's we had pet rocks.
In the 90's we got technical and got Tamagotchis.
Early in the "aughts", we just got weird, and had Furbies.
Now? In the middle of a severe economic crisis? We're getting furloughs under the holiday tree!

State employees got 'em (8 days each in fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2011).
County and municipal employees got 'em.
Private sector workers fared even worse.
The lucky ones took pay cuts; the not so lucky took unemployment.

How does business function in a deep recession? When revenues [for any organization] drop, and salaries and fringe benefits account for over 80% of one's operating budget, what, realistically, can one cut to reduce operating costs?

Sometimes the gorilla in the room is personnel costs.

As the Sun Prairie school district mounts its own struggle in the wake of the community voting to slash the tax levy by $2M, the answer, unfortunately, has to lie in real people. The reality is that the district is trying to cut $1,200,000 from the budget adopted on October 26. Sure, there will be proposals suggested to raise the hackles of the community, perhaps to encourage them to re-think this terrible hand they dealt school district administration and the school board. You might hear cries to cut art, or languages, music, or even (gulp!) sports programs.

What you have to do, dear community residents, is not fall for the bait and switch. You may need to find the time to attend school board meetings and state YOUR case. After all, is it really too silly to believe that school board members who were elected by the people, to serve the people, might actually LISTEN to the people?

How Much does ONE Day Cost?
Because you likely will be hearing the word, "furlough", let's look at what it costs for just one day. We apologize in advance for over-simplifying things. You see...all we have is that which is already public record to guide us--the annual report from the annual meeting. Sure, we could lay a lot of detailed open records requests on the district to get the info we need to get numbers that are more refined, but those folks have enough to do right now...and these numbers are close enough for government work.

A Day Without Teachers
So what if administration proposes furloughing teachers. What does that "save" us?
If you add the "Subtotal Instruction", to lines "210 000 Pupil Services", and "220 000 Instructional Staff Services" from the annual meeting booklet, you find that the annual cost of instruction (teaching) is $40,850,000.
Instruction cost (salaries + benefits) per year: $40,850,000
Contract length: 190 days (including 3 convention days, 3 work days, 2 professional development days, and 2 new teacher work days)
Instruction cost per contract day: ~ $215,000
Instruction cost (salary only) per contract day: ~ $150,000

So we trim about $150,000 (12.5% of the target budget cut) by furloughing teachers just one day???!
Hold the phone, Joan! We need to think this through. If we furlough teachers...who actually teaches the kids? Oh...yeah...we'd have to pay substitute teachers. And that cost is about $125 per day per substitute. Let's use 550 as the number of teachers. That sum alone means it would cost about $70,000 to replace the teaching staff, putting a large dent in the cost savings.

A Day Without Administration
Again from the annual meeting data, Administration, Admin Support, Business Admin, and Central Services combined costs the district $14,900,000 per year. Again, let's assume that on average, 30% of total cost is accounted for by fringe benefits.

Admin/Support Services) cost (salaries + benefits) per year: $14,90,000
Admin/Support Contract length: 210 (principals) or 260 days
Admin/Support cost per contract day: ~ $61,000
Admin/Support cost (salary only) per contract day: ~ $42,500

We're just sayin'.....

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Has Culver Left the Board Table?


The few people n the audience at the 10-26-09 school board meeting instantly recognized that something didn't feel right. Something was amiss. It took a few moments to realize what was out of place. It was the sight of Dr. Culver sitting off to the side table instead of his typical [yet inappropriate] place at the board President's left hand.

Could it be that the school board has finally decided that it's inappropriate for Culver--their employee-- to be seated at the board table? Is this a permanent change? Or was it merely that they didn't want to catch whatever virus Culver was infected with? [Culver's voice was noticeably affected by some respiratory infection, and he reached for the tissues several times as well. We only hope he used hand sanitizer before shaking hands with those that were given awards at the meeting.]

Guess we'll find out this coming Monday, when we see which seat Culver takes at the school board meeting.

The school board, for many years now, has opted for a "Team of Eight" approach, as we have written about previously .

We also offer this other website, which discusses the "Team of Eight concept"

" Who's in charge of our school boards & their. meetings when it's a 'Team of Eight' ... The "Team of Eight" is seven elected board members plus their employee ... "
www.peytonwolcott.com/TeamEight.html

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Potential Budget Cuts

It's time for a change in how this district does business.
We need to run this budget as if it were our own household and our own wallet. When times are tight, it's time to give up the SeaBass in favor of a nice McDonald's Filet-o-fish.

How about 1 district office newspaper instead of one for upstairs and one for downstairs? Better yet...how about NO subscription. You want a paper to read? Bring one in from home like the rest of us.

A few of us pooled ideas and came up the following 22 suggestions for where to start carving up the 2009-10 budget.

  1. Use the $40,000 unspecified capital project budget
  2. Use the $100,000 District Office Remodel ( move finance downstairs and another department upstairs)...or as much as is unspent. Terry Shimek was right to question it - how much sense does this spending truly make?
  3. Use the remaining $83, 000 Microsoft settlement (2nd half).
  4. Ensure that ALL costs associated with the new High School and UMS are taken
    from referendum dollars. (We've noticed several attempts to use general fund money).
  5. Transfer some of fund balance from other "funds" (e.g.; food service has $500K of fund balance) to the General Fund (be sure it's not impossible to do so, rather than "never been done before") .
  6. Cut the $425/month stipend for the District Administrator.
  7. Unpaid furloughs for school district administration staff only
  8. Negotiate a repeal of administrator and Admin Support increases for 2009-10 (or furlough to make the difference).
  9. Freeze Admin and Admin support staff salaries for 2010-11.
  10. Reduce Administrative/Admin Support positions (e.g., Program Managers).
  11. No vehicle replacements for 2009-11 unless absolutely mission critical.
  12. Put off until 2011-12 any non-critical, non-safety related building [projects (paving, painting, roofing].
  13. $5,000 reduction in capital painting budget. Or...could we skip painting for a year?
  14. Unspecified amount of revenue in field and facilities rental fees. Where does this money go? How much revenue has been generated?
  15. Reduction in the SOAR remodeling project cost
  16. 75% funding for 2nd school liaison officer.
  17. Reduce custodial services in schools.
  18. Review athletic fees relative to area (Big 8?) and statewide fees as well as actual cost per student. Consider raising those fees which tend to be a liability to the general fund.
  19. Re-evaluate some elective classes...if any are significantly un-selected, consider not offering for a year or so.
  20. Allow class sizes to increase at all grade levels. Perhaps set a firm cap at 30 students.
  21. Reduce # of teacher aides where possible.
  22. LAST: cut teaching positions
Future: We need to look at re-evaluation certified staff contracts. We need to raise the floor and put some sort of realistic ceiling in place.

That's our take.